Committal for Contempt of Court: Moat Homes -v- Platt

CivilCounty CourtCommittal for Contempt of Court

Claim number: K01CM208

In the County Court at Chelmsford Justice Centre

14 January 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Duddridge

Between:

Moat Homes Limited

-v-

Adrian Platt


Order

Before His Honour Judge Duddridge sitting at the County Court at Southend, The Court House, 80 Victoria Avenue, Southend-on-sea, Essex, SS2 6EU.

UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant in person
AND UPON the Court deciding to proceed although Defendant is not legally represented for reasons given in ex tempore judgment
AND UPON the Defendant admitting that he entered Parker Court on 16 December 2024 in breach of paragraph 1 of the Injunction dated 26 March 2024
AND UPON the Court determining that the appropriate penalty for that breach of the Injunction is an immediate custodial sentence of 56 days but that the Defendant should be given credit for the 28 days he has spent in custody since his arrest and that being equivalent to a custodial penalty of 56 days in accordance with s.258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
AND FOR the reasons set out in the Judgment annexed to this Order
IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The Defendant shall forthwith be released from custody.
2. The order dated 12 August 2024 for the Defendant’s committal to prison for a period of 4 months shall remain suspended until 26 March 2026 on the same conditions.
3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs summarily assessed in the sum of £5,932.65 within 14 days.
4. The Defendant has the right to appeal against this Order without requiring permission. The court before which any appeal must be brought is the Court of Appeal. The Appellant’s Notice must be lodged by not later than 4pm on 6 February 2025.
5. This Order and the judgment annexed to it will be published on the website of the judiciary of England and Wales.

JUDGMENT

  1. On 26 March 2024 DDJ Livesley made an anti-social behaviour injunction order against Mr Platt (“the Injunction”). Paragraph 1 of the Injunction prohibited Mr Platt from remaining on, entering or attempting to enter Parker Court, Waterside, Bradwell on Sea, CM0 1QU.
  2. At a hearing on 4 July 2024, which Mr Platt did not attend, I made the following findings:
    a. The Injunction was personally served on the Defendant on 12 April 2024;
    b. In breach of the Injunction the Defendant was present in Parker Court on the following dates: 13 April 2024, 15 April 2024, 16 April 2024, 25 May 2024.
  3. At a hearing on 12 August 2024, which Mr Platt also did not attend, I found that Mr Platt had been served with notice of that hearing. In his absence I ordered that he should be committed to prison for a period of 4 months, suspended until 4pm on 25 March 2026 on condition that he complies with the Injunction.
  4. On 16 December 2024 Mr Platt was arrested outside Parker Court. He was produced to the Court on 17 December 2024 and remanded in custody. Further orders remanding him in custody were made on 24 December 2024, 30 December 2024 and 6 January 2025.
  5. At today’s hearing Mr Platt admitted breaching the Injunction by entering Parker Court on 16 December 2024. He was thereby in contempt of court. I now determine the penalty for that contempt.
  6. I have considered the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Christopher Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631 that the objectives in sentencing for contempt of court are, in this order: (i) ensuring future compliance with the order; (ii) punishment; and (iii) rehabilitation. I have also considered the range of possible orders set out in paragraph 40 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment and the CJC’s guidelines reproduced at paragraph 54 of that judgment.
  7. Those guidelines require me to set the penalty for Mr Platt’s contempt by reference to the relative culpability of the breach on a scale A to C and the relative harm it caused on a scale 1 to 3, before considering aggravating factors that may increase the penalty and mitigating factors that may reduce it.
  8. The matters I consider most relevant to culpability are:
    a. Mr Platt first breached the Injunction on 13 April 2024, the day after it was served upon him.
    b. Mr Platt has repeatedly breached the Injunction despite having been arrested, produced to the Court and remanded on bail to attend future hearings.
    c. Mr Platt has therefore shown repeatedly that he does not intend to comply with the Injunction.
    d. There is no evidence that Mr Platt breached the Injunction between 25 May 2024 and 16 December 2024.
    e. Mr Platt has told me today that he went to his father’s house because he had been asked to leave his accommodation and had no money.
  9. This breach falls within Culpability A given the persistence and frequency of Mr Platt’s breaches of the Injunction and the contempt Mr Platt has shown for the authority of the Court.
  10. The matters most relevant to harm are:
    a. The purpose of the Injunction was in part to protect Mr Platt’s father, who lives at Parker Court, has dementia and is vulnerable. It was also to protect other residents of Parker Court, which is a retirement complex for residents aged 55 and over. The youngest resident is 61, the oldest is 87.
    b. The evidence relied on in support of the application for an injunction showed that Mr Platt’s behaviour had already caused them fear and alarm. Allegations included brandishing a knife, threats to kill the neighbours, setting fires and threats of violence to neighbours and his father as well as other anti-social behaviour.
    c. Therefore, although there is no evidence that Mr Platt directly caused harm to any other person on the occasions when he breached the Injunction, his very presence at Parker Court is likely to cause fear and alarm to the residents there and undermines the purpose of the injunction.
  11. I consider that these circumstances fall within Harm Category 2.
  12. The starting point for Culpability A, Harm Category 2 is a custodial sentence of 3 months. The range is adjourned consideration to 6 months.
  13. A significant aggravating feature in this case is that Mr Platt breached the injunction on 16 December 2024 despite having received a suspended custodial penalty on 12 August 2024 and in breach of the conditions attached to that suspension. Paragraph 17 of my judgment annexed to the order from that date made it clear that the reason for suspending the penalty was to give him a further chance to comply with the Injunction in future. The further breach shows particular contempt for the authority of the Court and unwillingness to obey the order of the Court.
  14. In mitigation I bear in mind the following:
    a. Mr Platt admitted the breach this morning – which I treat as effectively the first opportunity given that the previous adjournments were to assist him to obtain legal representation.
    b. There was evidence last year that Mr Platt experienced mental health difficulties, although it appears he was nonetheless able to understand the Injunction and its consequences.
    c. Mr Platt’s reason for going to the address was that he found himself without money or accommodation having been asked to leave the hotel where he had been living. Although not a good reason in itself for breaching the Court Order it does mitigate the breach to some extent.
    d. Mr Platt apologised for breaching the Court’s Order and said he would not breach it again.
  15. In view of Mr Platt’s repeated breaches of the Injunction and the fact that the latest breach happened despite the suspended penalty imposed on 12 August 2024 I am satisfied that nothing less than a custodial penalty for the breach on 16 December 2024 will be sufficient.
  16. As Mr Platt breached the Injunction despite the previous suspended custodial penalty, it would in principle be appropriate to impose a longer custodial penalty for his breach on 16 December 2024. However, balanced against that, there were relevant aggravating features on 12 August 2024 which increased the penalty on that occasion: namely, that Mr Platt had failed to attend two court hearings. Those aggravating features are not present today. I also bear in mind the mitigating features I have referred to above.
  17. In all the circumstances I consider that the appropriate penalty for the breach on 16 December 2024 is 56 days imprisonment. It would not be appropriate to suspend that penalty given that Mr Platt breached the Injunction despite the previous suspended penalty imposed on 12 August 2024.
  18. Mr Platt has spent 28 nights in custody following his arrest or on remand. I shall give credit for the time he has already spent in custody. As he is entitled to be released after serving half of the penalty (see s.258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), the 28 nights he has spent so far is equivalent to a custodial penalty of 56 days.
  19. I have considered whether to activate the suspended sentence imposed on 12 August 2024. The Claimant submits I should do so. But on this occasion, I have decided not to do so bearing in mind the mitigating factors I have referred to and the period of nearly 6 months between May and December 2024 when he complied with the Injunction. I also bear in mind that this is the first time Mr Platt has appeared at court at a hearing to decide the penalty for breach and there is an opportunity for me today to stress the importance of compliance with the order in the hope that that, together with the period he has already spent in custody, will bring home to him the seriousness of breaching it. Leaving the earlier order suspended provides Mr Platt with the opportunity and incentive to show that he can comply with the Injunction.
  20. The penalty I impose for the breach on 16 December 2024 is therefore 56 days imprisonment.
  21. As that time has effectively been served, Mr Platt shall be released today. However, the penalty I imposed on 12 August 2024 shall remain suspended. If there is a further breach of the order that penalty is very likely to be activated in addition to any further penalty for the further breach, which is likely to be substantial.
  22. Mr Platt has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my finding of contempt of court and against the penalty I have imposed without requiring permission. Any Appellant’s Notice must be lodged at the Court of Appeal by 4pm on 6 February 2025.

    Dated 14 January 2025